Friday May 26, 2000
Personal Attacks Not Wise: Manning, Campaign Life Coalition Agree
"In an analysis on Canadian Alliance leadership candidates penned for the organization's Web site, their organization (Campaign Life Coalition) launches a startling attack on several members of Tom Long's campaign team. Not based on policy differences, or even political style, but on sexual preferences."
Sheldon Alberts, in a National Post column, Friday May 26, 2000.
The above statement is simply not true. Sheldon Alberts assessment of the Campaign Life Coalition analysis of the Canadian Alliance Leadership race is wildly inaccurate and is typical of much of the media sensationalism in its coverage of this complicated issue.
Did Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) launch a "startling attack on several members of Tom Long's campaign team." No, it did not. CLC did provide an analysis of Tom Long's public statements on life issues. It also presented a possible explanation for Long's flip-flop on social issues: Long, who was once pro-life, and is no longer, has surrounded himself with well-known and outspoken social liberals who are now running his campaign for leader of the Canadian Alliance.
Is it true that the CLC analysis was "Not based on policy differences, or even political style, but on sexual preferences," as Sheldon Alberts suggests? No, this is not true. Of the five social liberals mentioned, the "sexual preferences" of only two were noted. One was a former key advisor to Premier Harris, who is now the business partner of the other, Jaime Watt, a nationally known homosexual-rights activist and lobbyist. Neither was "outed" by CLC. Both proudly proclaim their orientation. None of the social liberals on the Long campaign were personally "attacked", including Watt.
Is it relevant to reveal that the Long campaign is being directed by activists like Watt, who successfully lobbied governments in Ottawa and Toronto on behalf of the homosexual-rights movement, with the resulting sweeping legislative changes to dozens of laws and regulations?
Of course it's relevant. Particularly since the Long campaign has an excellent chance of seizing control of the Canadian Alliance, the only political party in the House of Commons that provided substantial opposition to Bill C-23, the Liberal bill enthusiastically supported by the homosexual-rights movement and many of Long's key advisors.
And is it relevant that Long's campaign manager, Leslie Noble, is an outspoken social liberal who has told social conservatives that they "have no place in a modern conservative party"?
This is not only relevant, but very important. Particularly since Long's two main rivals for the leadership, Preston Manning and Stockwell Day, are both pro-life and pro-family, as are many of their supporters, as are many Canadian Alliance MPs.
What will be the future role of Manning, Day and dozens of Canadian Alliance MPs in a party directed by Leslie Noble, who believes that there is no place for them in her party?
There is already broad agreement in the Canadian Alliance on many issues of importance to social conservatives, including opposition to Bill C-23. There will of course be some differences. Everyone is entitled to lobby for issues important to them; including the homosexual-rights movement; including people who are pro-life and pro-family; including Preston Manning, Stockwell Day and Tom Long.
In the National Post of May 26, Tom Long is quoted as saying: "I don't believe for a minute that this country needs another party that is going to divide us. I think we need leadership that is going to pull us together."
The truth is that Long's campaign is dominated by people who plan to quit the Canadian Alliance if he does not win. Is this not divisive? On the other hand, if he does win, we can expect that these same people will not only stay, but will run the party as they see fit. How will Long's people treat MPs and ordinary party members who are social conservatives, considering the view that there is "no place for them in a modern conservative party?" Will this pull the party together?
Preston Manning, when asked about this controversy on May 25, expressed his view that "personal attacks in campaigns generally are not wise and particularly when you are endeavouring to build a bigger, broader alliance."
Campaign Life Coalition agrees. CLC would not launch a personal attack on someone because of their chosen lifestyle, or for any other reason. The May 8th LifeSite analysis did not constitute a personal attack. What it did do was provide an analysis of where the various candidates stood on issues of importance to social conservatives. The controversy surrounding the May 8 CLC analysis and the misleading coverage by a few columnists and reporters provides another illustration of how important it is for socially conservative organizations to put forward their own case and not rely on politicians or supposedly "objective" journalists to be fair and truthful.
See May Interim analysis of the Candidates http://www.lifesite.net/interim/2000/may/01alliance.html
The May 8th CLC analysis http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/may/000508a.html
Michael Coren's article on this issue http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/may/000504a.html
Hear Michael Coren's broadcast today on The National Post http://www.lifesite.net/coren/ra/052600.rm
The media coverage involving Campaign Life Coalition/LifeSite was coast to coast. Here are some of the articles. National Post http://www.nationalpost.com/news.asp?f=000526/300186&s2=national&s3=politics http://www.nationalpost.com/news.asp?f=000526/300190&s2=national&s3=politics http://www.nationalpost.com/news.asp?f=000526/300189&s2=nati Globe and Mail http://www.globeandmail.ca/gam/National/20000526/ULONGN.html Ottawa Citizen http://www.ottawacitizen.com/national/000526/4165769.html Calgary Sun http://www.canoe.ca/CalgaryNews/cs.cs-05-26-0021.html Edmonton Sun http://www.canoe.ca/EdmontonNews/es.es-05-26-0037.html Both the Vancouver Province and Vancouver Sun carried the CP piece http://www.canoe.ca/NationalTicker/CANOE-wire.Alliance-Long.html
Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.